A fatal logical flaw in creationism?

I don't think this is a neccessary problem for an instant moment of creation. Many ID/ creation proponents put forward the idea that the initial created organism/ organisms had preplanned potentialities within their genome which, at the relevant time, were realised leading to aparent leaps in evolution. Allowing this tenuous line of argument ther is no reason why some all knowing creator could not imbue sufficient 'potential' into his initial creation to allow for all the subsequent development which we characterise as evolution.Of course this is all arrant nonsense and requires us to assume that there is layer upon subtle layer of highly complex information encoded into the initial genome/ genomes far beyond even the most complex current understandings of genetic organisation, a supposition for which there is absoloutely no basis. However, if we do allow this premise then there is no reason why an omnipotent creator cannot produce an organism, in a single instance of creation, capable of giving rise to all subsequent diversity and even novel IC structure.

I don't really see that as a problem. For straightforward diversification of life all that is needed is differential responses to specific environmental niches, things like sympatric speciation might need a bit more finagleing. The same script can give different results if it recieves different inputs, I assume you mean script as in a piece of computer coding.There are (still?) monkeys because some of the monkey/ ape ancestors ended up in an environment/situation where their monkey 'potentiality' was realised and some where their ape 'potentiality' was realised. As to how you construct such an evolutionary program, you probably have to be both omniscient and omnipotent to do so or indeed to understand it fully, how convenient for the creationists.

I am not putting ID forward as something I support personally. I am simply saying one particular criticism of RAZD's, that because the 'designing' was ongoing there could be no single instant of creation and therefore ID and creationism were incompatible, did not really apply to all ID theories.

Generally the less hard line proponents of ID don't mind it getting a bit evolutionary as long as there is still that supposed IC gap to stick God, or little green men or atlanteans or whatever, into. Its still just the same old tired argument from incerdulity, they don't believe such a thing could simply have evolved therefore it didn't.As long as they still have one single thread to hang onto where they can say 'but look this particular part of this metabolic pathway simply couldn't have evolved, even though every other single thing has, that must be the bit that God (LGM, atlanteans, etc...) contributed, praise be to God (LGM, antlanteans, etc...)!'.I never said that ID added anything of value, just that one of your particular criticisms of it was innaccurate.TTFN,WK